Analysing what the budget could mean for the forces | Sitrep podcast
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 06. 2024
- The Chancellor has promised another £11bn for defence over the next five years, but after soaring inflation and big donations to Ukraine how much extra is left over?
Professor of Defence Studies Michael Clarke explains what it means for the spending power of defence and what it might mean for the future of British forces as a new masterplan for their size and shape is drawn up.
We also take a closer look at the next generation of Royal Navy attack submarines, which will take up more than a quarter of the new cash.
And just days after the Ministry of Defence launched its own TikTok channel, the Chinese-owned app has been banned from Government devices. A former British Army intelligence officer explains the risks.
00:00 On Sitrep this week
01:25 The new defence budget explained
07:01 Updating the UK’s defence masterplan
13:14 The new AUKUS submarine
19:49 Is TikTok a threat to the MOD?
26:40 Michael Clarke’s experience of Chinese surveillance
#forcesnews #budget #aukus #defence #sitrep #china #tiktok
Subscribe to Forces News: bit.ly/1OraazC
Check out our website: forces.net
Facebook: / forcestv
Instagram: forcesnews...
Twitter: / forcesnews
The UK can't afford to increase military spending. The MoD needs to manage acquisition more effectively, spend more efficiently and prioritise requirements to focus on what is essential for homeland defence and NATO interoperability.
The UK spent ~$60 billion on their military in 2022. France spent ~$55 billion, yet it has a larger airforce, navy and army. The problem is not lack of funding, but mismanagement.
@@davericketts9101 Then I don't think you understood my comment, because my point was that increasing defence spending won't result in an improved military.
Why do you think it should be increasd anyway?
Yes and no, the UK can and should put more money into defense but there also needs to be better management. Currently UK spends 2.1% of GDP on defense which is at the minimum and gives a budget of about $60bn something, but that's not enough. An increase to 2.5% GDP by 2025 and 3% by 2030 should be the goal and is easily do able. In the 90s the UK was spending 3%, and 4% in the 80s. A small increase of 0.3% over the next 2 years and then 0.1% a year from 2025-2030 would meet the goal of 3% by 2030.
So much money is taken up by needed but costly assets like aircraft carriers, F-35s, Trident subs, marine and amphibious forces etc that there needs to be more money for a bigger conventional army force. An army combat force of say 100k active + 30k reserves, 300-400 upgraded/new tanks, a mix of 200 self propelled artillery and MLRS, a mixed fleet of 1,500 Ajax and Boxer AFV/APCs, and 60-70 new Apaches should be the minimum force. Half of those are already in service or ordered but just not enough of them, like right now there are only 80k active troops, only 148 tanks are being upgraded, only 50 new Apaches ordered, barley 100 self propelled artillery and MLRS, and only 1,200 Ajax and Boxers on order combined.
It has a larger force cause it’s forces are older and generally smaller.
Might want to buy back Finningly - all air transport in one single base is a vast mistake
We might have a better equipped army but a smaller army non the less. When really we need a bit of both. But when he said it’s bad for the army no surprises there.
They need to increase the City class to 12 and the Type 31 (Inspiration is not a good class name) to 12 and fast forward the next Destroyer’s and build 12 multi role Destroyers 12,000 tons + with a minimum of 32 dedicated ASUW VLS cells and 60 dedicated AAW and anti ballistic cells. With a 30 knot minimum.
That will allow for 4 Destroyer’s, City class and Type 31s frigates available at any one time. Meaning we could form 2 task forces of 2 DDs, 2 FGs, and have 4 type 31s to conduct low intensity patrolling. That’s potentially 1 carrier battle group and a detached task force or two carrier groups if necessary.
By my estimation that’s roughly £61.2 billion going at 2022 prices. Spread across the decade and a half - two decades it will take to complete that order thats £4.08 billion a year for 15 years or £3.06 billion a year over 20 years.
and they're going to be crewed by.......? When the navy cant even stop the little boats coming across the channel? What a waste of money.
@@stevem-h3562say 220 men for the DDs thats 2,640 men if you had 12 crews, the City Class 157, 12 crews that’s another 1,884, type 31s 100 men, 12 crews 1200 men all together that’s 5,724 men. That’s absolutely do able, naturally that’s not taking into account shore based personnel.
Unless we get rid of the raf I don't think we'll be able to afford that
@@regarded9702 why? £61.5 shelf price for 36 surface vessel compared with the AUKUS deal which is £200 billion paid for by Australia, a smaller economy and much smaller military budget.
@@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617 you’re a champion you know that.
So if we spent say £40 billion extra more I know it's a long off.. but would that male the situation better or still not enough.
Not highlighting the current high sign off rate in Armed Forces, especially the Army.
The big issue is you no longer have a ground force.
The UK is an island off the NW coast of the European continent, surrounded by sea, friendly neighbours or allies. The British army has always been the least important of the armed services in terms of homeland defence, but it needs to be capable enough to protect British interests abroad (e.g. Falklands) and operate alongside NATO allies.
Good! We must NOT be trapped into committing large ground forces to Europe. We are a global AIR and SEA power. NOT a dupe for freeloading EUro-parasites like the French who SHOULD field a bigger army themselves and cut THEIR superfluous navy to do so.
If the Ukraine crisis ends in the next six months, these revised budgets won't survive until the following Christmas. And Labour will never honour these new commitments, regardless.
The Army needs a full corps made up of 4 division, each division made up of two brigades each made up of two combat groups. 72,000 men, with another 144,000 in logistics, intelligence, medics, mechanics, none combat engineers, electronics, ect.
288 MBT and at least 576 IFVs up gunned to 50mm to take on direct fire support and cheek mounted Javelins for anti tank like the Bradley’s and their tows in desert storm to free the MBTs up to make up for such few numbers. 1152 APCs all with 30mm.
I still want to see Chadimir Putin being arrested and be put to prison like how it happened to David Smith
Remember: Even the walls have ears (& eyes), it's that simple. If you work in any type of security organisation, you should know better, otherwise the organisation is failing its people and it's aims. Politics versus funding its Military, always clash, until it is always almost far too late. A War Footing is adopted only in a National emergency & definitely not for a conflict 1000's miles away, unfortunately. Current population of politicians have little to no experience of conflict, let alone war, compared to generations after WW2 and are arguably un-wilfully or wilfully ignorant! All we can do is do the best with what we have, 'as it's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog". So individually prepare and lets start 'Dad's Army'!
Okay if we are going to leave European defence to the Europeans and just concentrate on the Far East this will be fine!